But first, before I dive into discovery number three, Scott raised an excellent objection to the idea that infallibility means the Bible will never steer you wrong yesterday. He wrote, “If that were true, then Protestantism wouldn’t consist of thousands of wildly divergent, even contradictory schisms and sects. In fact, it’s not even a new argument. Arius, for example, argued much the same and based his arguments extensively on the Holy Scriptures. In the end he was refuted not on the basis of Scripture, but because what he taught was not what the church had always believed and traditioned (handed over) about Christ. His was not the proper use of the Holy Scriptures. But you can’t show that from the texts themselves. There is nothing that privileges one interpretation over another save a tradition of interpretation.” (emphasis mine)

I’ve been tempted on more than one occasion to walk away from the Christian faith because it’s been so warped, misused, and abused that it becomes unrecognizable. The vast spectrum of divisions, especially in Protestantism, disturbs me greatly, especially as many claim to be the One True Faith and all others to be false. But I cannot walk away from Jesus. Each time come back to the response Peter gave when Jesus asked the disciples if they wanted to leave him along with everyone else (see John 6:60-69). “Master, to whom would we go?”

Ultimately, when someone abuses the Bible and their authority, they choose to do that. It isn’t something that the Bible pushes on them. Perhaps the image of the Bible as the one steering is incorrect — it is more like a map that can be misunderstood, altered, or set aside. We are the ones choosing to go one way or another. I think that’s where many who abuse the Bible go wrong — they put the Bible in the center, in place of God. While you can manipulate a book to say what you want it to say, God will never be manipulated.

How do you know someone is manipulating or misusing the Bible? Scott gives an excellent guide — if it’s a new or novel interpretation, be very wary. And even if it’s old, keep your eyes open. Heresies come in and out of fashion, so it is rare to see one that has never before appeared. Look to what has been widely agreed-upon as orthodox before throwing caution to the wind.

Finally, a word of hope. We are broken and we are sinful and we each bungle our faith and life, whether malicious or innocent. This is nothing new — we see people doing the same all through the Bible. Our hope and our confidence must not be in a book or a teacher or an interpretation of that book, it must be in the God who gave the book and redeems it all. God is the unmoving center and can and will work in and through all our messes, even when we misinterpret and misapply the Bible.

Moving on. What else have I learned about inerrancy?

3. Denying Inerrancy Is Not Heresy

It was very refreshing to read both of these statements on the same page:

“[The statement] affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God’s own Word that marks true Christian faith.”

Translation: we believe that denying that the Bible is inerrant discounts what Jesus and the Holy Spirit say about the Bible and shows a refusal to submit to what the Bible teaches.

~and~

“We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.”

Translation: Despite our warning, we admit that many who deny inerrancy live without showing any of the consequences we warn against, while many who affirm inerrancy with their words deny it in their lives by refusing to submit to the Bible’s teaching.

So, if you run into someone who denies inerrancy, you need to keep in mind two things — you may each define the word differently, and even if you agree on what it means, they are not heretics or illegitimate Christians because of this one issue. (They may be deceivers or the deceived based on other things, just not only this one.) In addition, from my own experience, a quiet reasonable conversation is much more effective in helping someone (including yourself) wrestle through this issue than pounding over the head or labeling. We are each learning, growing, and maturing, so let’s show a little grace to one another in this process.

Tomorrow I am giddy about sharing a guest post from one of the funniest Christian women I know, so I’ll continue this series on Friday (unless something else comes up).

How do you keep the Bible and the God it talks about in the right place in your faith? What happened when you got them out of balance?

3 Comments

I would be very careful about judging someone’s motive. It’s an easy trap into which to fall. And, in fact, it’s often those with the highest of motives who do the most damage, not those who are “abusing Scripture”.

I would nuance things a little more. Christians would almost always say that God is so far beyond us, so far transcends us, that there is always more that can be said about God. So “new” by itself is not enough. I think very highly of St. Seraphim of Sarov. He spoke a great deal about acquiring the Holy Spirit and I would say some of his insights were things that had not been said before, at least the way he said them. (A very well-known such saying is “Acquire the Spirit of peace and a thousand around you will be saved.”) Rather, I would ask if this new thing contradicted the consensus of the faith or if it materially changed the nature of that faith in any way. In both those instances, I would tend to reject it.

Why? I would say there I have to agree with the NT when it so emphasizes traditioning (though many English translations hide that fact by choosing different words for the positive uses of paradosis in its various forms). Paul himself says he was traditioned. (For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received) And he repeatedly emphasizes the importance for the church to hold fast to that which was traditioned to it.

Age itself is of little import as you note. Docetism is quite old and is again quite prevalent today. Whether you like or dislike something novel and materially different is also not a good measure. I despise Calvinism and the God it describes. I think quite highly of the writings and teachings of John Wesley. But the truth is that while Wesley altered the tradition of the Christian faith much less than Calvin did, he still altered it in some pretty significant ways. And, if anything, those differences have only grown stronger over time.

The bottom line to which I keep returning is a simple one. Either we believe that the tradition of the faith (which includes the proper interpretation of the Holy Scriptures — as revealed and taught by Jesus himself, remember) has been preserved within the church and can be discerned or, as far as I can tell, we have no way at all of knowing how the Bible should rightly be read. I would say anyone who believes we can start from a text alone — especially one as complex, deep, and rich as the Holy Scriptures — and discern its proper interpretation is either deceiving themselves or has far too high a view of their own intellectual prowess.

If you believe the Holy Spirit will show you the “right” interpretation I would advise you to be very, very cautious. Every heretic who has ever led the church astray has believed they were right — at least as far as I can tell. On the one hand, we are told the Holy Spirit is not the only spirit who whispers to us. But in truth we often do not need to be deceived by an external force. We are all too capable of self-deception.

There’s more I could say on that topic, but that’s probably already too much. 😉

I don’t know that I “deny inerrancy” as much as I view it as an odd and, as far as I can tell, largely useless category. What really matters are not the words themselves, but what they mean.

Todd Erickson
on July 20, 2011 at 8:50 pm

In practice, “infallibility” usually means “the way that I and those who agree with me choose to interpret the bible is correct”.

Joy, I agree with you on this. I have seen so much bible deism that people choose to cut off loved ones over this one issue. In my studies on what a ‘heretic’ really is, I found it to be about pushing the law on people and attempting to steal their freedom in Christ through such vain traditions..even when they happen to be found “scripturally supported” by some groups.